User talk:AureliusKirk
--From Andoria with Love 20:38, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC) Welcome aboard and it's good to see another person getting involved with the ol' duty roster. In case you were wondering, the reason not every episode is listed as needing a summary or complete is that I created the page not too long ago and listed the episodes that needed work at the time. Keeping those that have been done was mainly to show that there's a point to the page since I was afraid people wouldn't like the idea. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 08:18, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) Death penalty Was it referred to as capital punishment? I'm drawing a blank. Also, thanks for supporting my adminship, I was really surprised when I looked at the voter turnout. The average for previous votes would be 6 or so cast, but apparently Tim was right about me being "quite a figure" because I had 16! --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 00:33, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC) :Okay, check your mail. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:21, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC) Re:Hornblower article The background information is fine, but that was not the reason the pna was up. The thing is, in order for the article to stay, it has to have had a valid reference inside the Star Trek universe. Perhaps somebody in one of the episodes or movies mentioned him? If they did, this should be noted, as should the basis for why it was mentioned (for example, if a character was comparing someone to Hornblower). Commentary dialogue and fan comparisons alone cannot sustain the basis for an article (if that makes sense... it is past 4:30 in the morning over here :P). As it stands right now, though, the article is a Wikipedia paragraph (that being the introductory paragraph), combined with extensive background information. However, we have no reference from inside the Trek universe, which is what is really important. That said, you've done a great job with the background info -- I just hope we can find cited information for it. I hope this helps. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:39, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) Edits Concerning James T. Kirk a request: please edit an article as rarely as possible because every edit is stored in the database and longer ones like Kirk blow it up if you edit that often. Edit the whole page and change all you want to change at once. Thanks. --Memory 18:41, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) Kirk refit Hey, Aurelius. I just wanted to say you're doing an outstanding job with the James T. Kirk article, and I look forward to seeing what's to come. Also, I see you never received a standard welcome message, so I gave it to you at the top of the talk page (as you probably noticed). Anyways, keep up the good work! :) --''See you... out there!'' From Andoria with Love 20:38, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC) Image sizing I've noticed, and subsequently resized, numerous images you have uploaded that far exceed 100 kilobytes in size. According to our image use policy, it is preferred that, "Images stored in an article should generally be kept below 70 kilobytes in size, and 35 kilobytes or smaller is even better." Considering I was able to open and resave your images (without make any modifications to the images whatsoever), and reduce the file size by 50 to 75%, this suggests that saving them at the larger file size is unnecessary. It would be of great help that you could possibly attempt to limit the file size of your uploads (some of which were larger than some of our audio files!). If you are unsure how to do this, and you have a Windows OS on your computer, simply open up your .jpg file in MS Paint and make some minor change to the image (undo it if you wish) and save it over the previous file. Otherwise, not doing this and continuing to upload large images makes for an eventual headache for those who perform various maintenance tasks, such as the monitoring and maintaining of the . Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) Re: Changes to Kirk You might be right about the background, but the italics are unnecessary really. MA has stuff that's "in-universe" (most normal pages) and "out-of-universe". When we're talking in the latter, we don't need the italics because it's already in a background POV. I don't know how strongly you feel about it, but we could always bring it up on Ten Forward if you think there should be a precedent made (I don't think there is one now). And thanks for bringing this to my talk page instead of just reverting to your version. :) --Broik 17:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) From Talk:Islam Regarding your comment on the late Talk:Islam, in which you asked: :Has there ever been any mention of Islam in Star Trek canon? If not, is this article valid? --Aurelius Kirk 21:27, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) The answer is: Nope, no mention. Not only that, but since it was previously deleted for that very reason, it qualified as an immediate delete -- hence, why it no longer exists. :P --From Andoria with Love 22:00, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) Khitomer conspiracy I did a *raw* merge of your Battle of Khitomer article with the Khitomer conspiracy-- that merged the two articles, then pasted the text from both into the same page. Have at her if you still want to work with it, except now expand the scope of it to cover the entire conspiracy with the battle being the climax (as well as the assassination attemtp of the Fed Prez) of the conspiracy. --Alan del Beccio 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks for the guidance, I'm on it. I agree that this is a better way to handle the whole subject. --Aurelius Kirk 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) New images I was just wondering about the new (TOS) images you upload, replacing the ones that I had uploaded earlier. Is it necessary to replace nearly every image I uploaded? Now both images are stored here at memory-alpha and take up more storage space then just one image. I was wondering, what qualifies a good image. The file-size is to be not too large and the image should preferably be a DVD-cap, I guess. But what about format? When I began uploading images half a year ago, I almost always chose a rectangular 4:3 format, but recently I've changed to upload more or less squarish images. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disappointed or something, because my images are no longer in use (you haven't touched the TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT images yet...;-), I was just wondering what to do, so a common quality or format for images can be found. --Jörg 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :I've been meaning to talk to you about this -- I noticed I've steamrolled some of your stuff. I mean no offense, I appreciate the huge amount of work you've done with the caps. Quite often it's a matter of taste and experience... I've done many thousands of similar edits in my work. Most video caps are uploaded without any color/level adjustment, making for greyish, flat images. I know "MA is not an image gallery", but when I've found something I can improve on -- make it 'pop' off the page a little better -- it's not a big deal for me. :As for duplicate images taking up storage space, it's only a temporary issue. Alan is pretty quick about deleting old versions in the next day or so. (I'll point him to this discussion in case he has a comment.) I'd do it immediately myself, but I'm not an admin. :I prefer a reasonably-cropped 4:3 format because it's the orginal aspect ratio (for TOS) and takes less physical space in image-intesive articles these caps might someday be found in. It also sheds just a little more light on the subjects if we show some of the context where they originally appeared. When practical, I prefer showing a hint of costume that might otherwise be cut out in a closely-cropped headshot. :Thanks for bringing this up... email me, or we'll try to catch up in chat, to talk more about it. Maybe we can collaborate on something or at least not duplicate efforts so much in the future. :) --Aurelius Kirk 14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ::Yep, I noticed that too. Most of the time, I just crop my screencaps and upload them right away, I only lighten them up from time to time, but not with TOS images as they are mostly bright enough, but you're right, the images sometimes appear very flat, and look much better after color adjustment. (even moreso with screencaps from the modern series). ::Oops, didn't know that, so that shouldn't be a problem afterall. ::I think the reason why I switched to a square 1:1 ratio was twofold. First of all, the images of the characters appear larger if the ratio is 1:1, making it sometimes easier to recognize the face without switching to the full-size image. It is also easier to compile several images into a table (for actor pages etc) because the images align easier, if all of them have the same height and therefore the same width if they are squares. But that's just minor reasons. ::Recently, Valaraukar added images in another format (Q'Ell, E'lis), I must say, that I like that format as well (an image of that format would look great on the Mugato page, I think), I don't know...;-) ::Sure that's a good idea. A few months ago, I uploaded images of all female TOS characters that didn't have images at that time, so the men are still missing. ;-) ::But it really is no problem, because I already have all the screenshots of everyone and everything on the computer, so it's just a matter of uploading them, which doesn't take much time and effort.--Jörg 15:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :::Thinking about that long vertical format of Q'Ell and E'lis, I know vertical images might look good in a page-layout sense, but those images are now only suitable for the one page they've been placed on. If there was any call for those to be featured on another page with other images, the huge thumbnails would misrepresent the importance of a vertical image in relation to the others on the page. I'm not sure if I'm making my point, so I'll just say shorter (height) images are more versatile in more circumstances! --Aurelius Kirk 01:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Challenge Hi there... I have a challenge for you. :) I've been doing lots of formatting (and reformatting) of articles lately, and two that I just finished are Worf and T'Pol. Since you seem to be a master of bringing coherence to massive and disjointed articles (Kirk being an excellent case in point, and also Khan), how would you feel about taking a pass (or 20) at one (or both!) of the afore-mentioned articles? I've cleaned them up considerably in terms of spelling, links, formatting, layout, grammer, punctuation, and the like, but the both still need a lot of work. They've both been added to by many people with no eye to consistency or redundancy, so information is duplicated throughout the articles in different sections, and neither reads well as a whole. The Worf article is the worst, if for no other reason that it's longer. I don't have the time, inclination, patience... whatever... to do that kind of top-down rewrite on these, but maybe someone else (like you?) does. What do you think... are you up to the challenge?? heh! -- Renegade54 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC) * Geeze... now my honor is on the line? I thought this was a goofy little hobby to kill time for a few weeks! I know how rude it is to turn down flattery like that, but I can't quite accept your challenge. I'm not TNG-DS9-ENT illiterate, but I don't have the grasp of those characters like I do with TOS, so I probably can't whip the articles into as good a shape as you're looking for. But I will give both Worf and T'Pol articles a good look, and do what I can with them. Fair 'nuff? --Aurelius Kirk 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Rozhenko pic Well, I see you accepted the challenge! :-) I uploaded the pic of the two Rozhenkos, hope that one is OK. If you need anything else, tell me, I'll gladly help.--Jörg 13:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)